Art Barstow wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:06:27AM +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
> >
> > ISSUE: I hereby call for an issue on the wording of deprecation and
> > backwards compatibility so we don't have to conflate it or get
> > diverted from addressing issues.
>
> I just wanted like to second this good idea!
>
> I would also like the chairs to clarify what (if any) restrictions
> the WG has wrt to syntax changes.
The chairs have an important role in keeping us aware
of the charter and interpreting it from time to time,
but I'm not sure you should expect them to say
much more than what the charter says
at this point when we have so little experience.
Each time the WG addresses an issue, we provide part
of the answer here. If there's a pattern, or
if some things work well and some work poorly,
we can expect the chair to apply that experience
in the future; perhaps they'll eventually develop
a general policy for this sort of thing if it
looks cost-effective.
But please resist the urge to generalize on
the basis of little experience.
> For example, is there is a
> blanket statement that can be applied to all issues?
>
> The only reference I found in the WG charter:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter
>
> regarding backwards compatibility is:
>
> [[
> Backwards compatibility with existing RDF applications is a priority
> for the RDF Core Working Group.
> ]]
>
> so I'd also like to know - what does this really mean?
I think it's sufficient to figure that out as we go.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/